Okay, so I am way out of the loop, and only learned bout the existence of the Mazda CX-50 yesterday. It also seems like it is not really much more expensive than the CX-5. I'm curious about the turbo model, since it seems like it has a decent amount of power, can tow 3500 lbs, and hopefully has enough wheelbase to ride smoothly on the highway. Anyone driven or own one, and have any thoughts on them?
subscribed. this is on AW's short list for when the Ody gets retired in about a year (and AK2 will finally get the Saab we bought for her almost 2 years ago)
Also curious about these.
I had one as a rental not too long ago. It was the top end turbo model. I really liked it. Put about a 1000 miles on it over the week. Having driven everything in that class at one time or another, this is the one I would get. My aunt agreed as she just took delivery of hers.
Pros: Most composed in the class IMHO. I drive my sister's rav4 all the time and like the cx-50 much more. Can run 87 and 93 with a noticeable difference. Right sized for my use. Can turn off most of the nannies. Got in the high 20's for MPG in the highway. It was close to 30 at an 80MPH cruise. It just feels closer to an Audi than a Toyota from a feel and luxury side.
Cons: Sitting behind me is a little tight. Better than the CX5 but still not spacious. Mazda entertainment system is an acquired taste and one I haven't acquired. It's a little pricey but I think worth it.
Tony was just talking about how much they like theirs in another thread, he will probably show up here soon.
I really like my mothers '17 CX5, which is the same platform overall I think. Great to drive for what it is, very nice interior, and hers has been 100% trouble free. Now, if she would just stop backing into things.
Visually I like the 50 much more than the 5. For whatever reason, they aren't selling well where I live.
Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:Visually I like the 50 much more than the 5. For whatever reason, they aren't selling well where I live.
Agreed, I think the different front end looks a lot better. There do seem to be a decent number of them on lots in my area, too. I just noticed, too, even the base Turbo gets heated seats, so no need to go to a higher trim line.
I saw a CX-50 Meridian Edition in my dealership around Christmas, and it caught my eye. I still went with a CX-5 - it's the devil you know kind of deal - and from the sounds of the dealer they weren't going to give a great deal on it. They sold it that day, so I don't blame them.
I just looked up a CX-5 and CX-50 - they look almost identical. What am i missing?
Is this the same drivetrain that's in the CX-90? Inline turbo 6? The CX-50 would be far too diminutive for my needs. Heck, the CX-9 is occasionally too small. But yes, the CX-90 is on a short list of candidates to replace the CX-9 in a few years.
DirtyBird222 said:I just looked up a CX-5 and CX-50 - they look almost identical. What am i missing?
IIRC, the 50 is longer wheelbase and lower roofline, but same basic platform.
In reply to 1988RedT2 :
Nope, it uses the 2.5 four cylinder in turbo and non turbo versions.
DirtyBird222 said:I just looked up a CX-5 and CX-50 - they look almost identical. What am i missing?
You're mostly missing that Mazda updated their naming convention when they updated their models.
CX-3 became CX-30, CX-5 became CX-50, CX-9 became CX-90
They are all good looking vehicles as Mazda tries to move themselves "upscale".
I look at it differently, given that the CX-5 and CX-9 still exist.
The model with the 50 is slightly larger. It looks different. Better in my opinion. Other makes have shown that people will buy every single flavor of SUV, so Mazda is using it as an opportunity to try to move up market.
Throttle House talked about how amazing the steering is in the 50, comparing it to a Lotus!
I don't see many of them on the road yet. Have not driven one either, so I can't be of much help. I don't think a lot of people are buying them, at least not yet.
We recently bought a turbo CX-30 and really like it. This is our first Mazda so I have nothing to compare it to, but it appears very well built. For just the two of us, we wanted cargo space, but also something smallish and easy to park - no need for a huge rear seating area. As far as the turbo option goes, I never drove the NA version, which would have been perfectly adequate in our heavy traffic, but the turbo comes with some options (like 360-deg camera) that sure is handy, as is of course the performance. If you care about mileage, it's only mid-20s, but for as little as we drive, it doesn't matter. As always, how well something fits your lifestyle is entirely up to you.
AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:DirtyBird222 said:I just looked up a CX-5 and CX-50 - they look almost identical. What am i missing?
IIRC, the 50 is longer wheelbase and lower roofline, but same basic platform.
Okay, the lower roofline scares me a bit. We looked at the CX-30 when it first came out, and had to bend very uncomfortably to get in and out without hitting our heads. Hopefully the CX-50 doesn't have a similar issue.
We just reserved an en route CX5 Preferred after I was rear ended hard enough to total my wife's car. First new car either of us ever had, easily 2x the price of any car we've ever owned at 38k OTD. Mazda has a great financing deal at 2.9% for 3 years, making it a no brainer since high yield savings rates are around 4.5%. I really liked the CX5 Carbon Edition but wife hated the red interior. If you race a Mazda you can join their "support team", then call and get S-Plan pricing which makes things super easy. They also have a $500 incentive at the moment if you have another Mazda, BUT it has to have an active regiatration, so trailered race cars won't count.
We looked at the CX-50 as we weren't sure what we wanted. Were initially going to get a CX-30 until wife got a better look at the space (too small). The CX-50 is nice, but we really didn't "get" it. Didn't seem worth the extra price at all. Mazda is currently trying to push "off road luxury" as a strategy, which seems doomed to fail honestly. The CX-50 appears to be targeted towards that push, and just doesn't seem like a good deal in my opinion. We are also pretty cheap and just looking for a practical daily with kid/dog in tow that we plan on keeping until the wheels fall off, so YMMV.
eastsideTim said:AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:DirtyBird222 said:I just looked up a CX-5 and CX-50 - they look almost identical. What am i missing?
IIRC, the 50 is longer wheelbase and lower roofline, but same basic platform.
Okay, the lower roofline scares me a bit. We looked at the CX-30 when it first came out, and had to bend very uncomfortably to get in and out without hitting our heads. Hopefully the CX-50 doesn't have a similar issue.
I am 6'2" and I don't have any issue on height in ours with the panoramic moon roof
My wife drives a 2023 CX50 Premium Plus non turbo. For what it is worth I am a Mazda engineer at the factory so I know a little bit about the car.
If you are comparing the CX5 versus the CX50, this is what I would say. The CX5 feels a bit more like an SUV in driving position whereas the CX50 feels a bit more like a tall wagon. The CX50 adds off road mode which does help off-road but it isn't a Wrangler and isn't trying to be but from testing I have seen it does a pretty good vs SUVs in the similar segments. I do think the ride quality of the CX5 is slightly better. The CX50 has a longer trunk and a touch more rear seat room but less head space (but I am still fine at 6'2" with a the panoramic moon roof.) The CX50 has a more refined interior imo. I won't compare to much with other SUVs cause it would probably be pretty biased but the CX50 is a great driving SUV.
AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:DirtyBird222 said:I just looked up a CX-5 and CX-50 - they look almost identical. What am i missing?
IIRC, the 50 is longer wheelbase and lower roofline, but same basic platform.
Not the same platform.
CyberEric said:I look at it differently, given that the CX-5 and CX-9 still exist.
The model with the 50 is slightly larger. It looks different. Better in my opinion. Other makes have shown that people will buy every single flavor of SUV, so Mazda is using it as an opportunity to try to move up market.
CX9 is dead.
"Off road luxury" Annoys me. So Mazda's making a Range Rover? Hardly. I am something of a Mazda Fanboi, having owned five in the past, but the last couple of times I've cross-shopped Mazdas I've ended up with the competition. I want to like the 50, because it basically looks like a 5 that spends time at the gym rather than the mall. But I'm afraid that if I were to get in one, I'd end up disappointed again.
let me copy paste what one of our benchmark guys said about it during a rental week on his holiday:
"
Pros:
- Extremely nice interior. If you had replaced the Mazda badging with Lexus or BMW, I’d have believed I was riding in a nicely optioned base model Lexus or BMW.
- Very comfortable seats. Not Buick levels of comfort, but it wouldn’t be the worst place to take a long drive up I-95 in.
- Good rear seat legroom and good headroom all around. I’m 6 feet tall, and had plenty of room no matter where I sat, including with a rear facing car seat in the back.
- Good rear cargo space. At one time time the trunk swallowed our 3 suitcases, two backpacks, and stroller; while another time a stroller, beach wagon, 2 backpacks, and large cooler - always with room to spare, and always under the factory cargo cover.
- Not the most powerful engine, but powerful enough to get out of its own way and merge onto the highway.
- Extremely quick shifting transmission when in manual mode.
- Off road mode was quite good. We drove it to a few beaches that require four-wheel-drive to access, and to my uncle’s house in the mountains, where the last two miles of the route are on a road that was last paved during FDR’s presidency, with a 500 yard stretch that would be considered a 2 in an off road trail rating system.
- The optional Bose stereo sounds amazing.
- Beautiful onscreen graphics.
- Infotainment is quick and intuitive (when it works - more in cons)
- Mostly good ergonomics (with one gripe in the cons list))
Cons:
- Thirsty-ish. This is an NA 2.5 4cyl moving around a 2 ton SUV. It’s definitely an overworked engine. We averaged 15 mpg in a mix of highway and city driving.
- Suspension is extremely uncomfortable over crappy Puerto Rico roads (so would probably be the same in Michigan roads). The car came with 20” wheels and sporty rubber from factory, so maybe reducing to 18” wheels and a tire with a thicker sidewall would fix that.
- Sport mode does seemingly nothing other than change shift points. Supposedly it remaps the throttle, but other than the shift points, it didn’t drive or react to inputs any differently.
- The steering, while precise, is heavier than other competitors. On a performance car I wouldn’t mind that so much, but on what is ultimately a family SUV, not the biggest fan.
- The infotainment is quick WHEN IT WORKS. Unfortunately, about 1/3 of the time, after starting the car I’d have a black screen. A workaround was to make a call on the phone, which would pop up on the screen, bringing the infotainment onto the screen.
- The car had folding rearview mirrors (great option in Puerto Rico, where parking bays tend to be narrower than they are in the continental US), but in an ergonomic gripe, the button to fold the mirrors is located next to the mirror adjustment buttons. So if I was trying to adjust a mirror, I’d accidentally fold in the rearview mirrors, and vice versa.
All in, this is a decent effort, and is likely to be reliable, as it shares an already proven powertrain with the CX5. However due to the few issues noted in the cons, within the Mazda family, the CX5 is a better option unless you need the additional cargo space. Change the steering feel and fix the usability issues though, and I’d put it above the CX5."
another opinion (my sister) says it looks like a subaru, (and therefore she don't want it)
and my 2 cents:
he CX9 is going out of production in favor for the CX90, the CX30 replaced the poor selling CX3 which was on the global ford/mazda fiesta/mazda2 platform that didn't do well here. Now the mazda2 shares the platform with the American Yaris (not USA/Canada but North/South America region).
Since they got rid of the mazda6, which is the CX5 platform, I bet that it will get the ax next as they move to the 2 digit naming models.
The interior across the board is top notch, soft touch materials, there are buttons and everything fits elegantly unlike a Ford which will rattle itself to death causing you nothing but literal headaches. Really happy for them to be out of the Ford umbrella and doing well on their own.
and like any mazda the infotainment is pretty clunky and trash but in the old days it was easy to toss a new headunit in, with this modern stuff is so integrated its much harder to do or impossible.
plus this is built along side the corolla cross as this is a toyota/Mazda JV in Alabama which a modern, well equipped plant.
I think this is the same ballpark as the general subaru community for offroading, not the 500 dollar E36 M3box challenge and rustville but rather "I have outdoor activities and sometimes the roads that lead to where I do that are less paved" I wouldn't assume you can go out and jump it but for normal people 'off roading' is a dirt road to which this does more than average I would assume. Curious on the rear suspension setup as all the other mazdas seem to have the same basic rear suspension design/arrangement since the early 2000s, but it is incredibly easy to service and drives nice so why bother changing it. Noticible tech upgrades on my moms new CX5 show an electronic e-brake but rear suspension setup looks identical to my dads 2011 mazda6.
I would call it get to the trail head off road ability. It's not going to go rock climbing or anything but it's on par with the Fozzie in that regards. Enough for primitive camping and get a little off the beat path.
Once the pricing and such gets back to normal, I see one in my garage in a couple years as my touring vehicle.
Just bought a CX-50 Preferred Plus package for daughter #2. She wanted something she could drive down gravel roads and such for camping...but preferred Mazda reliability over Subaru lack thereof.
Oh, and S-Plan FTW.
eastsideTim said:In reply to 1988RedT2 :
Nope, it uses the 2.5 four cylinder in turbo and non turbo versions.
I don't know if it's still an issue, but that engine was prone to cracking the cylinder head and dumping all of the coolant into the crankcase.
You'll need to log in to post.
